This chapter describes Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Scholarly discussion of these two plays that Shakespeare wrote together with John Fletcher has followed a by now familiar pattern: (i) in ...
More

This chapter describes Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Scholarly discussion of these two plays that Shakespeare wrote together with John Fletcher has followed a by now familiar pattern: (i) in the mid-nineteenth century pioneering work identifies the scenes written by each dramatist; (ii) these findings are consolidated by other scholars, using different methods; (iii) Shakespeare 'conservators' deny the findings, asserting his sole authorship; and (iv) a recent generation of scholars, using more powerful analytical tools, validates the originally proposed divisions. The pattern being familiar, in discussing these two co-authored plays there is little need to follow out every move for and against. In particular, the chapter addresses the respective methodologies in enough detail to enable readers to understand and evaluate them.Less

Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher

Brian Vickers

Published in print: 2004-01-08

This chapter describes Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Scholarly discussion of these two plays that Shakespeare wrote together with John Fletcher has followed a by now familiar pattern: (i) in the mid-nineteenth century pioneering work identifies the scenes written by each dramatist; (ii) these findings are consolidated by other scholars, using different methods; (iii) Shakespeare 'conservators' deny the findings, asserting his sole authorship; and (iv) a recent generation of scholars, using more powerful analytical tools, validates the originally proposed divisions. The pattern being familiar, in discussing these two co-authored plays there is little need to follow out every move for and against. In particular, the chapter addresses the respective methodologies in enough detail to enable readers to understand and evaluate them.

No issue in Shakespeare studies is more important than determining what he wrote. For over two centuries scholars have discussed the evidence that Shakespeare worked with co-authors on several plays, ...
More

No issue in Shakespeare studies is more important than determining what he wrote. For over two centuries scholars have discussed the evidence that Shakespeare worked with co-authors on several plays, and have used a variety of methods to differentiate their contributions from his. In this wide-ranging study the author takes up and extends these discussions, presenting compelling evidence that Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus together with George Peele, Timon of Athens with Thomas Middleton, Pericles with George Wilkins, and Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher. Part one of the book reviews the standard processes of co-authorship as they can be reconstructed from documents connected with the Elizabethan stage, and shows that all major, and most minor, dramatists in the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline theatres, collaborated in getting plays written and staged. This is combined with a survey of the types of methodology used since the early nineteenth century to identify co-authorship, and a critical evaluation of some ‘stylometric’ techniques. Part two gives detailed analyses of the five collaborative plays, discussing every significant case made for and against Shakespeare's co-authorship. Synthesizing two centuries of discussion, the author reveals a scholarly tradition, builds on and extends previous work, and identifies the co-authors' contributions in increasing detail. The range and quantity of close verbal analysis brought together in this book present a case to counter those ‘conservators’ of Shakespeare who maintain that he is the sole author of his plays.Less

Shakespeare, Co-Author : A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays

Brian Vickers

Published in print: 2004-01-08

No issue in Shakespeare studies is more important than determining what he wrote. For over two centuries scholars have discussed the evidence that Shakespeare worked with co-authors on several plays, and have used a variety of methods to differentiate their contributions from his. In this wide-ranging study the author takes up and extends these discussions, presenting compelling evidence that Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus together with George Peele, Timon of Athens with Thomas Middleton, Pericles with George Wilkins, and Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher. Part one of the book reviews the standard processes of co-authorship as they can be reconstructed from documents connected with the Elizabethan stage, and shows that all major, and most minor, dramatists in the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline theatres, collaborated in getting plays written and staged. This is combined with a survey of the types of methodology used since the early nineteenth century to identify co-authorship, and a critical evaluation of some ‘stylometric’ techniques. Part two gives detailed analyses of the five collaborative plays, discussing every significant case made for and against Shakespeare's co-authorship. Synthesizing two centuries of discussion, the author reveals a scholarly tradition, builds on and extends previous work, and identifies the co-authors' contributions in increasing detail. The range and quantity of close verbal analysis brought together in this book present a case to counter those ‘conservators’ of Shakespeare who maintain that he is the sole author of his plays.

This chapter reviews some of the methods currently used, focusing on the canon of two dramatists who frequently took part in collaborations, John Fletcher and Thomas Middleton. Their work is ...
More

This chapter reviews some of the methods currently used, focusing on the canon of two dramatists who frequently took part in collaborations, John Fletcher and Thomas Middleton. Their work is especially relevant since they both collaborated with Shakespeare. It also includes John Ford, because some interesting work has been done on his co-authored plays. However, it occasionally cites some evidence for his authorship of the Funerall Elegye for William Peter. It begins with the techniques used for identifying co-authors with the oldest method, which takes its origin from when a reader familiar with the verse styles used in Elizabethan drama recognizes two or more different styles in a play. The second approach to authorship studies that is discussed derives from the familiar experience of reading or seeing a play and being reminded of some other work. While verbal parallels, including rare words or words used in special senses, remain a valid tool in authorship studies, much help can he derived from large-scale studies of a writer's vocabulary.Less

Identifying Co-Authors

Brian Vickers

Published in print: 2004-01-08

This chapter reviews some of the methods currently used, focusing on the canon of two dramatists who frequently took part in collaborations, John Fletcher and Thomas Middleton. Their work is especially relevant since they both collaborated with Shakespeare. It also includes John Ford, because some interesting work has been done on his co-authored plays. However, it occasionally cites some evidence for his authorship of the Funerall Elegye for William Peter. It begins with the techniques used for identifying co-authors with the oldest method, which takes its origin from when a reader familiar with the verse styles used in Elizabethan drama recognizes two or more different styles in a play. The second approach to authorship studies that is discussed derives from the familiar experience of reading or seeing a play and being reminded of some other work. While verbal parallels, including rare words or words used in special senses, remain a valid tool in authorship studies, much help can he derived from large-scale studies of a writer's vocabulary.

Charles Wesley's reputation has been affected by his sometimes difficult personality and the controversial views that he championed, which has resulted in comparative neglect of his life and ...
More

Charles Wesley's reputation has been affected by his sometimes difficult personality and the controversial views that he championed, which has resulted in comparative neglect of his life and ministry. A strong case can, however, be presented for Charles having made a more positive contribution to the long‐term success and character of Methodism than is commonly acknowledged. His championship of a considerable body of pro‐Anglican opinion within the movement helped to stave off separation until the movement was in a position to flourish independently of the Church of England and also contributed to the unique character of the Methodist Church. Detailed study of Charles Wesley's life and ministry underlines the case for a new examination of aspects of Methodist history, complementary to but separate from the traditional focus on John Wesley.Less

Concluding Remarks

Gareth Lloyd

Published in print: 2007-04-12

Charles Wesley's reputation has been affected by his sometimes difficult personality and the controversial views that he championed, which has resulted in comparative neglect of his life and ministry. A strong case can, however, be presented for Charles having made a more positive contribution to the long‐term success and character of Methodism than is commonly acknowledged. His championship of a considerable body of pro‐Anglican opinion within the movement helped to stave off separation until the movement was in a position to flourish independently of the Church of England and also contributed to the unique character of the Methodist Church. Detailed study of Charles Wesley's life and ministry underlines the case for a new examination of aspects of Methodist history, complementary to but separate from the traditional focus on John Wesley.

This chapter demonstrates that co-authorship can be seen just as clearly in the treatment of character and motive as in language. In considering Shakespeare's co-authorship of the five plays ...
More

This chapter demonstrates that co-authorship can be seen just as clearly in the treatment of character and motive as in language. In considering Shakespeare's co-authorship of the five plays presented, namely Titus Andronicus with George Peele, Timon of Athens with Thomas Middleton, Pericles with George Wilkins, and King Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher, it concentrates on their language, and the many ways in which his style can be differentiated from that of his collaborators. Specifically discussed are the plot and character in these co-authored plays.Less

Plot and Character in Co-Authored Plays: Problems of Co-ordination

Brian Vickers

Published in print: 2004-01-08

This chapter demonstrates that co-authorship can be seen just as clearly in the treatment of character and motive as in language. In considering Shakespeare's co-authorship of the five plays presented, namely Titus Andronicus with George Peele, Timon of Athens with Thomas Middleton, Pericles with George Wilkins, and King Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher, it concentrates on their language, and the many ways in which his style can be differentiated from that of his collaborators. Specifically discussed are the plot and character in these co-authored plays.

This chapter discusses five plays by Shakespeare, namely Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Henry VIII, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. It is a curious fact that the theatrical and ...
More

This chapter discusses five plays by Shakespeare, namely Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Henry VIII, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. It is a curious fact that the theatrical and publishing tradition which established the authenticity of the plays ascribed to Shakespeare also managed to suppress — or perhaps just obscure — any sign that he ever worked together with other dramatists. It is argued that one of the quartos reprinted in the folio, Titus Andronicus, was a joint work with George Peele, and that two of the plays published for the first time in the folio, Timon of Athens and Henry VIII, were jointly written with Thomas Middleton and John Fletcher, respectively. The chapter also reconstructs something of the material context within which collaboration took place.Less

Authorship in English Renaissance Drama

Brian Vickers

Published in print: 2004-01-08

This chapter discusses five plays by Shakespeare, namely Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Henry VIII, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. It is a curious fact that the theatrical and publishing tradition which established the authenticity of the plays ascribed to Shakespeare also managed to suppress — or perhaps just obscure — any sign that he ever worked together with other dramatists. It is argued that one of the quartos reprinted in the folio, Titus Andronicus, was a joint work with George Peele, and that two of the plays published for the first time in the folio, Timon of Athens and Henry VIII, were jointly written with Thomas Middleton and John Fletcher, respectively. The chapter also reconstructs something of the material context within which collaboration took place.

The future Countess of Huntingdon was born into an aristocratic Leicestershire family in 1707; her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in 1728 was a love match that produced seven children. She ...
More

The future Countess of Huntingdon was born into an aristocratic Leicestershire family in 1707; her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in 1728 was a love match that produced seven children. She underwent an evangelical conversion in 1739, and thereafter came into contact with the Moravian Brethren, and leaders of the Revival including the Wesleys and George Whitefield. Gradually she assumed a position of influence within the Revival, as well as using her position to further evangelical religion within fashionable society. Her husband’s death in 1746 left her the care of a young family, but also enabled her to extend her religious activity, for example, by promoting harmony within the Revival in the face of internal divisions, and expanding her links with Anglican Evangelicals. From the early 1760s she began to open her own chapels and to build up a band of clerical helpers to serve at them.Less

Selina, Countess of Huntingdon: Early Life and the Start of the Connexion

Alan Harding

Published in print: 2003-10-02

The future Countess of Huntingdon was born into an aristocratic Leicestershire family in 1707; her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in 1728 was a love match that produced seven children. She underwent an evangelical conversion in 1739, and thereafter came into contact with the Moravian Brethren, and leaders of the Revival including the Wesleys and George Whitefield. Gradually she assumed a position of influence within the Revival, as well as using her position to further evangelical religion within fashionable society. Her husband’s death in 1746 left her the care of a young family, but also enabled her to extend her religious activity, for example, by promoting harmony within the Revival in the face of internal divisions, and expanding her links with Anglican Evangelicals. From the early 1760s she began to open her own chapels and to build up a band of clerical helpers to serve at them.

This chapter explores central Protestant objections to purgatory, namely, that it is not clearly taught in scripture, and it undermines the work of Christ for our salvation and the doctrine of ...
More

This chapter explores central Protestant objections to purgatory, namely, that it is not clearly taught in scripture, and it undermines the work of Christ for our salvation and the doctrine of justification by faith. It also examines Protestant accounts of how believers are perfected and made ready for heaven, accounts that provide alternatives to the doctrine of purgatory. These include Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan accounts, with primary focus on classical sources. Contemporary spokesmen are also examined, some of whom show openness to a reassessment of the doctrine.Less

Protestant Objections and Alternatives to Purgatory

Jerry L. Walls

Published in print: 2011-12-01

This chapter explores central Protestant objections to purgatory, namely, that it is not clearly taught in scripture, and it undermines the work of Christ for our salvation and the doctrine of justification by faith. It also examines Protestant accounts of how believers are perfected and made ready for heaven, accounts that provide alternatives to the doctrine of purgatory. These include Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan accounts, with primary focus on classical sources. Contemporary spokesmen are also examined, some of whom show openness to a reassessment of the doctrine.

This chapter examines the complex relationship between Anglicanism and Methodism. Revising the view that Methodism was an ever-separating movement, this chapter contends that the eighteenth-century ...
More

This chapter examines the complex relationship between Anglicanism and Methodism. Revising the view that Methodism was an ever-separating movement, this chapter contends that the eighteenth-century Church of England was a varied body, with myriad challenges which it confronted through the maintenance of a pastoral ideal, lived out ‘on the ground’ by the parish clergy. The industrializing parish of Madeley, Shropshire (where the incumbent from 1760 to 1785 was the Revd John William Fletcher), is used as a case study. Together with Madeley, other examples of dutiful and evangelically minded clergy who utilized the experimental religion and religious irregularities often associated with Methodists or Dissenters, are surveyed. The chapter concludes that Fletcher and many evangelically minded Anglican-Methodist clergy found the Church of England sufficiently strong and flexible enough to do the work of the Church rigorously and creatively, and that Methodism could serve as a means of Anglican pastoral success.Less

Anglicanism and Methodism

David R. Wilson

Published in print: 2017-10-05

This chapter examines the complex relationship between Anglicanism and Methodism. Revising the view that Methodism was an ever-separating movement, this chapter contends that the eighteenth-century Church of England was a varied body, with myriad challenges which it confronted through the maintenance of a pastoral ideal, lived out ‘on the ground’ by the parish clergy. The industrializing parish of Madeley, Shropshire (where the incumbent from 1760 to 1785 was the Revd John William Fletcher), is used as a case study. Together with Madeley, other examples of dutiful and evangelically minded clergy who utilized the experimental religion and religious irregularities often associated with Methodists or Dissenters, are surveyed. The chapter concludes that Fletcher and many evangelically minded Anglican-Methodist clergy found the Church of England sufficiently strong and flexible enough to do the work of the Church rigorously and creatively, and that Methodism could serve as a means of Anglican pastoral success.

This chapter considers the theatrical challenges of reimagining Double Falsehood/Cardenio for production at the Royal Shakespeare Company, where Gregory Doran, the author, is the Chief Associate ...
More

This chapter considers the theatrical challenges of reimagining Double Falsehood/Cardenio for production at the Royal Shakespeare Company, where Gregory Doran, the author, is the Chief Associate Director. Having directed a number of Fletcher plays for the company, including The Tamer Tamed, The Island Princess, and the Shakespeare collaboration All is True (Henry VIII), Doran became fascinated by the mysterious Cardenio, developing his adaptation of Theobald’s Double Falsehood with help from theatre colleagues and academic communities in Spain, to reassert some of the tone of the Cervantes’s original; and testing the text with Spanish-American actors from New York’s LAByrinth Theatre Company at an RSC residency in Michigan University, and in two workshops in Stratford. His purpose is not to pastiche an ‘authentic’ version of what the play might have been in 1613, but to re-explore the story in theatre terms for the twenty-first century. The production reopened the Swan Theatre in April 2011.Less

Restoring Double Falsehood to the Perpendicular for the RSC *

Gregory Doran

Published in print: 2012-09-06

This chapter considers the theatrical challenges of reimagining Double Falsehood/Cardenio for production at the Royal Shakespeare Company, where Gregory Doran, the author, is the Chief Associate Director. Having directed a number of Fletcher plays for the company, including The Tamer Tamed, The Island Princess, and the Shakespeare collaboration All is True (Henry VIII), Doran became fascinated by the mysterious Cardenio, developing his adaptation of Theobald’s Double Falsehood with help from theatre colleagues and academic communities in Spain, to reassert some of the tone of the Cervantes’s original; and testing the text with Spanish-American actors from New York’s LAByrinth Theatre Company at an RSC residency in Michigan University, and in two workshops in Stratford. His purpose is not to pastiche an ‘authentic’ version of what the play might have been in 1613, but to re-explore the story in theatre terms for the twenty-first century. The production reopened the Swan Theatre in April 2011.

This chapter considers the reaction to the publication, in March 2010, of the Arden edition of Double Falsehood. It takes into account discussion in the press and in the ‘blogosphere’, as well as ...
More

This chapter considers the reaction to the publication, in March 2010, of the Arden edition of Double Falsehood. It takes into account discussion in the press and in the ‘blogosphere’, as well as academic reviews that have so far appeared, and considers what controversies have been generated, what new knowledge has been gained, and what are the principal unanswered questions in the wake of this publication. The chapter offers some speculative answers to some of those questions.Less

After Arden

Brean Hammond

Published in print: 2012-09-06

This chapter considers the reaction to the publication, in March 2010, of the Arden edition of Double Falsehood. It takes into account discussion in the press and in the ‘blogosphere’, as well as academic reviews that have so far appeared, and considers what controversies have been generated, what new knowledge has been gained, and what are the principal unanswered questions in the wake of this publication. The chapter offers some speculative answers to some of those questions.

Religious lives and letters in a variety of formats were edited and disseminated for the purposes of example, encouragement, instruction, and pleasure. This chapter analyses a wide range of examples, ...
More

Religious lives and letters in a variety of formats were edited and disseminated for the purposes of example, encouragement, instruction, and pleasure. This chapter analyses a wide range of examples, such as collections of lives made by puritans, dissenters, Quakers, and Methodists, including the lives of women; posthumous collections of letters by clergy and ministers; letters published in magazines; diaries and journals, some published by the writers themselves, notably George Whitefield and John Wesley; and exemplary lives of individual ministers and laypeople. There are detailed case studies of John Newton’s life of William Grimshaw and Wesley’s life of John William Fletcher, and of the much republished lives of the Presbyterian Colonel James Gardiner, the Congregationalist Joseph Williams, and the Methodist Hester Anne Rogers.Less

Lives and Letters

Isabel Rivers

Published in print: 2018-07-12

Religious lives and letters in a variety of formats were edited and disseminated for the purposes of example, encouragement, instruction, and pleasure. This chapter analyses a wide range of examples, such as collections of lives made by puritans, dissenters, Quakers, and Methodists, including the lives of women; posthumous collections of letters by clergy and ministers; letters published in magazines; diaries and journals, some published by the writers themselves, notably George Whitefield and John Wesley; and exemplary lives of individual ministers and laypeople. There are detailed case studies of John Newton’s life of William Grimshaw and Wesley’s life of John William Fletcher, and of the much republished lives of the Presbyterian Colonel James Gardiner, the Congregationalist Joseph Williams, and the Methodist Hester Anne Rogers.

This book examines why early modern drama’s response to English settlement in the New World was muted, even though the so-called golden age of Shakespeare coincided with the so-called golden age of ...
More

This book examines why early modern drama’s response to English settlement in the New World was muted, even though the so-called golden age of Shakespeare coincided with the so-called golden age of exploration: no play is set in the Americas; few plays treat colonization as central to the plot; and a handful feature Native American characters (most of whom are Europeans in disguise). However, advocates of colonialism in the seventeenth century denounced playing companies as enemies on a par with the Pope and the Devil. Instead of writing off these accusers as paranoid cranks, this book takes as its starting point the possibility that they were astute playgoers. By so doing we can begin to see the emergence of a “picture of America,” and of the Virginia colony in particular, across a number of plays performed for London audiences: Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, The Staple of News, and his collaboration with Marston and Chapman, Eastward Ho!; Robert Greene’s Orlando Furioso; Massinger’s The City Madam; Massinger and Fletcher’s The Sea Voyage; Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl; Shakespeare’s The Tempest, and Fletcher and Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. We can glean the significance of this picture, not only for the troubled Virginia Company, but also for London theater audiences. And we can see that the picture that was beginning to form was, as the anti-theatricalists surmised, often slanderous, condemnatory, and, as it were, anti-American.Less

The Absence of America : The London Stage, 1576-1642

Gavin Hollis

Published in print: 2015-07-01

This book examines why early modern drama’s response to English settlement in the New World was muted, even though the so-called golden age of Shakespeare coincided with the so-called golden age of exploration: no play is set in the Americas; few plays treat colonization as central to the plot; and a handful feature Native American characters (most of whom are Europeans in disguise). However, advocates of colonialism in the seventeenth century denounced playing companies as enemies on a par with the Pope and the Devil. Instead of writing off these accusers as paranoid cranks, this book takes as its starting point the possibility that they were astute playgoers. By so doing we can begin to see the emergence of a “picture of America,” and of the Virginia colony in particular, across a number of plays performed for London audiences: Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, The Staple of News, and his collaboration with Marston and Chapman, Eastward Ho!; Robert Greene’s Orlando Furioso; Massinger’s The City Madam; Massinger and Fletcher’s The Sea Voyage; Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl; Shakespeare’s The Tempest, and Fletcher and Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. We can glean the significance of this picture, not only for the troubled Virginia Company, but also for London theater audiences. And we can see that the picture that was beginning to form was, as the anti-theatricalists surmised, often slanderous, condemnatory, and, as it were, anti-American.

In contrast to the previous chapter, Chapter 4 examines Lucan’s use chiefly in English political drama, ranging from The Misfortunes of Arthur (1588), an entertainment devised by lawyers for ...
More

In contrast to the previous chapter, Chapter 4 examines Lucan’s use chiefly in English political drama, ranging from The Misfortunes of Arthur (1588), an entertainment devised by lawyers for Elizabeth I, to The Tragedy of Nero (1624). It begins with a discussion of Ben Jonson’s complex use and appraisal of Lucan in his Roman tragedies and ends with the way he draws on Lucan The Masque of Queens (1609); Philip Massinger and John Fletcher’s The False One (ca. 1620) also receives extended discussion. The chapter argues that Lucan’s often stark moral and political oppositions were appropriated by dramatists concerned with governance, and especially with the pernicious effects of royal favouritism, court corruption, and the doctrines of legal absolutism and reason of state.Less

Speaking to Pothinus: Lucan and ‘Commonwealth’ Drama, from The Misfortunes of Arthur to The Tragedy of Nero

Edward Paleit

Published in print: 2013-04-25

In contrast to the previous chapter, Chapter 4 examines Lucan’s use chiefly in English political drama, ranging from The Misfortunes of Arthur (1588), an entertainment devised by lawyers for Elizabeth I, to The Tragedy of Nero (1624). It begins with a discussion of Ben Jonson’s complex use and appraisal of Lucan in his Roman tragedies and ends with the way he draws on Lucan The Masque of Queens (1609); Philip Massinger and John Fletcher’s The False One (ca. 1620) also receives extended discussion. The chapter argues that Lucan’s often stark moral and political oppositions were appropriated by dramatists concerned with governance, and especially with the pernicious effects of royal favouritism, court corruption, and the doctrines of legal absolutism and reason of state.

Whereas numerous infidel women convert to Christianity on the early modern English stage, relatively few infidel men convert. Chapter 5 explores the interplay of race, gender, and salvation in ...
More

Whereas numerous infidel women convert to Christianity on the early modern English stage, relatively few infidel men convert. Chapter 5 explores the interplay of race, gender, and salvation in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, John Fletcher’s The Island Princess, and Philip Massinger’s The Renegado. The frequency with which Jewish, Turkish, and Moorish women convert to Christianity in English drama more generally responds to the convergence of theological and medical discourses that highlighted the role of male seed in creating a child’s identity, and reflects as well Reformation theology’s linkage of spiritual and sexual reproduction. Nonetheless, anxieties about what an infidel mother might pass on to her children, even when she is married to a Christian man, prompt Fletcher’s and Massinger’s plays to employ the discourse of martyrdom in order to verify the women’s acquisitions of true Christian faith.Less

. Reproducing Christians : Salvation, Race, and Gender on the Early Modern En glish Stage

Dennis Austin Britton

Published in print: 2014-04-03

Whereas numerous infidel women convert to Christianity on the early modern English stage, relatively few infidel men convert. Chapter 5 explores the interplay of race, gender, and salvation in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, John Fletcher’s The Island Princess, and Philip Massinger’s The Renegado. The frequency with which Jewish, Turkish, and Moorish women convert to Christianity in English drama more generally responds to the convergence of theological and medical discourses that highlighted the role of male seed in creating a child’s identity, and reflects as well Reformation theology’s linkage of spiritual and sexual reproduction. Nonetheless, anxieties about what an infidel mother might pass on to her children, even when she is married to a Christian man, prompt Fletcher’s and Massinger’s plays to employ the discourse of martyrdom in order to verify the women’s acquisitions of true Christian faith.

This chapter presents concluding remarks on early modern English society, discussing how, at that time, conflict was the order of the day. Conflict over legitimate authority—politics—pervaded the ...
More

This chapter presents concluding remarks on early modern English society, discussing how, at that time, conflict was the order of the day. Conflict over legitimate authority—politics—pervaded the household. The early modern English were not oblivious to prominent features of their lives. The chapter discusses John Fletcher's play, The Noble Gentleman, and one of its characters—the impotent husband, Marine. It also looks at Apollo, who noticed that many women were unfaithful to their husbands, who were then saddled with the proverbial cuckold's horns. The chapter reveals how Apollo instructed Sir Philip Sidney, Orpheus Junior, and a few others “to set downe some wholesome remedies for married men to gouerne their Wiues, that they horne them not”—and for husbands not to be tempted by other women.Less

Conclusion

Don Herzog

Published in print: 2013-04-30

This chapter presents concluding remarks on early modern English society, discussing how, at that time, conflict was the order of the day. Conflict over legitimate authority—politics—pervaded the household. The early modern English were not oblivious to prominent features of their lives. The chapter discusses John Fletcher's play, The Noble Gentleman, and one of its characters—the impotent husband, Marine. It also looks at Apollo, who noticed that many women were unfaithful to their husbands, who were then saddled with the proverbial cuckold's horns. The chapter reveals how Apollo instructed Sir Philip Sidney, Orpheus Junior, and a few others “to set downe some wholesome remedies for married men to gouerne their Wiues, that they horne them not”—and for husbands not to be tempted by other women.

This chapter presents excerpts from John William Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism: Or, A Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley's Last Minutes…in Five Letters (1771). When Methodism, which began ...
More

This chapter presents excerpts from John William Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism: Or, A Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley's Last Minutes…in Five Letters (1771). When Methodism, which began as a movement of renewal within the Church England in the late 1730s, split into two factions, Fletcher joined the second generation of Methodists. Three years after his ordination as a minister in the Church of England, Fletcher became vicar of Madeley in Shropshire in 1760, and remained so for the remainder of his life. When the Methodist preacher Walter Shirley expressed his concern regarding some of the comments made in the Methodist minutes at the 1770 conference, Fletcher corrected what he believed were misinterpretations about Charles Wesley's doctrines. Originally a series of private letters written to Shirley, Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism was published as a polemic that contains his interpretation of Wesleyan theology.Less

Defending the Doctrine of Christian Perfection

John William Fletcher

Published in print: 2013-09-19

This chapter presents excerpts from John William Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism: Or, A Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley's Last Minutes…in Five Letters (1771). When Methodism, which began as a movement of renewal within the Church England in the late 1730s, split into two factions, Fletcher joined the second generation of Methodists. Three years after his ordination as a minister in the Church of England, Fletcher became vicar of Madeley in Shropshire in 1760, and remained so for the remainder of his life. When the Methodist preacher Walter Shirley expressed his concern regarding some of the comments made in the Methodist minutes at the 1770 conference, Fletcher corrected what he believed were misinterpretations about Charles Wesley's doctrines. Originally a series of private letters written to Shirley, Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism was published as a polemic that contains his interpretation of Wesleyan theology.

This chapter considers religious difference as it is enacted in the later Jacobean play Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt by John Fletcher and Philip Massinger. Here, Dutch Calvinist powers put to death ...
More

This chapter considers religious difference as it is enacted in the later Jacobean play Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt by John Fletcher and Philip Massinger. Here, Dutch Calvinist powers put to death an Arminian for largely political reasons that are nonetheless framed by accusations of religious heresy. The tragedy of religious violence comes back to the fore as a conclusion to this book as a means to demonstrate the vicissitudes of toleration and intoleration over the course of the late Elizabethan and Jacobean years. But Barnavelt has enough cracks on its façade of anti-Arminianism that the play also helpfully demonstrates the refusal of so much drama of this period to adhere to clear binaries when it comes to matters of religious difference.Less

Brian Walsh

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter considers religious difference as it is enacted in the later Jacobean play Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt by John Fletcher and Philip Massinger. Here, Dutch Calvinist powers put to death an Arminian for largely political reasons that are nonetheless framed by accusations of religious heresy. The tragedy of religious violence comes back to the fore as a conclusion to this book as a means to demonstrate the vicissitudes of toleration and intoleration over the course of the late Elizabethan and Jacobean years. But Barnavelt has enough cracks on its façade of anti-Arminianism that the play also helpfully demonstrates the refusal of so much drama of this period to adhere to clear binaries when it comes to matters of religious difference.

Continuing discussion from Chapter 14 of the Henrician Reformation and the ‘Tudor ideology of obedience’, and reflecting on how these events and forces appeared from perspective of the 1590s and ...
More

Continuing discussion from Chapter 14 of the Henrician Reformation and the ‘Tudor ideology of obedience’, and reflecting on how these events and forces appeared from perspective of the 1590s and 1600s, this chapter focuses on two plays to which Shakespeare contributed: Sir Thomas More (primarily by Anthony Munday) and Henry VIII (co-authored with John Fletcher). Both plays are considered in relation to the pressure put on conscience by individual, clerical, and marriage vows, and oaths imposed by the state. Contexts are found in state oaths of supremacy and allegiance, the Gunpowder Plot, and the Latin, Jesuit play Thomas Morus. Analysis leads to the baptism of the future Elizabeth I at the end of Henry VIII, both for what it reveals of the sacramental connection between oaths, vows, and Protestant doctrine and as a signal moment in the cementing of an English state Church.Less

Reformation II : Sir Thomas More and Henry VIII

John Kerrigan

Published in print: 2016-03-01

Continuing discussion from Chapter 14 of the Henrician Reformation and the ‘Tudor ideology of obedience’, and reflecting on how these events and forces appeared from perspective of the 1590s and 1600s, this chapter focuses on two plays to which Shakespeare contributed: Sir Thomas More (primarily by Anthony Munday) and Henry VIII (co-authored with John Fletcher). Both plays are considered in relation to the pressure put on conscience by individual, clerical, and marriage vows, and oaths imposed by the state. Contexts are found in state oaths of supremacy and allegiance, the Gunpowder Plot, and the Latin, Jesuit play Thomas Morus. Analysis leads to the baptism of the future Elizabeth I at the end of Henry VIII, both for what it reveals of the sacramental connection between oaths, vows, and Protestant doctrine and as a signal moment in the cementing of an English state Church.

This chapter presents excerpts from Mary Fletcher's Jesus, Altogether Lovely: Or a Letter to Some of the Single Women in the Methodist Society (1766). Fletcher was one of the most influential ...
More

This chapter presents excerpts from Mary Fletcher's Jesus, Altogether Lovely: Or a Letter to Some of the Single Women in the Methodist Society (1766). Fletcher was one of the most influential Methodist women of the eighteenth century. Mary wed John William Fletcher, vicar of Madeley, on November 12, 1781, and together they sustained a dynamic ministry in Madeley witnessing to the colliers and lower ranks in the parish. When John died of a fever in August 1785, Mary continued her ministry at Madeley. In her letter, Mary offered advice to single women on the subjects of chastity, poverty, and obedience.Less

Advice to Women on Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience

Mary Fletcher

Published in print: 2013-09-19

This chapter presents excerpts from Mary Fletcher's Jesus, Altogether Lovely: Or a Letter to Some of the Single Women in the Methodist Society (1766). Fletcher was one of the most influential Methodist women of the eighteenth century. Mary wed John William Fletcher, vicar of Madeley, on November 12, 1781, and together they sustained a dynamic ministry in Madeley witnessing to the colliers and lower ranks in the parish. When John died of a fever in August 1785, Mary continued her ministry at Madeley. In her letter, Mary offered advice to single women on the subjects of chastity, poverty, and obedience.